It's a Big image, so I'm going to give you the image description up top (which is long enough, but easy to scroll past), and put the image itself below the cut:

Image description: A black and white tabloid sized poster in the style of an educational diagram, showing a tree and its root system, combined with text to explain the relationship between Bigotry, Ableism, Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia.

At the bedrock level: "BIGOTRY: Beliefs and policies which work to exclude people from full membership in human society."

Above, in the root system: "ABLEISM: Judging the value of a person's humanity on the basis of ability."

Above ground, the tree's trunk has two main forks; the left-hand fork is labeled "RACISM:" and leads to an example racist belief in its cluster of leaves: "Blacks are Less Intelligent than Whites, but they are More Athletic"

The tree's right-hand fork is labeled "SEXISM:" and leads to two clusters of leaves. The main cluster reads: "Women are Weaker, & Less Rational than Men;" the secondary cluster, branching off from the first, reads: "Gays are effeminate. Lesbians are emasculating."

At the very top of the tree, in a cluster of leaves centered between these two branches, with a freely curving arrow pointing down to each half, is the explanation: "Claims about Ability used to Pass Judgment on People's Humanity (This is ABLEISM)"

Description ends.

It's all black and white, now. ...I'm debating whether to add color here and there (like outlining the tree's leaves, and maybe coloring the words). It would be easier to color the entire thing if I had the option of saving a scanned image as a .gif or .png file instead of only .jpg or .pdf.

[Image description: a block of text, divided into four sections. The base of this box is bright yellow, with black text that reads: “Ableism: The belief that the value of a human life is best judged by a Measure of Ability.”

Above that, reading left to right, are three blocks titled “Racism:”, “Sexism:”, and “Homophobia:”.

The “Racism:” block is brick red, and reads (in white text): “Blacks are natural thugs because they’re not as smart as Whites, and they can’t control their emotions.” A yellow arrow points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and yellow text reads: “That’s ABLEISM.”

The “Sexism:” block is dark teal, and reads (in white text): “Women are better off married to men, because they are weaker, and are less rational.” A yellow arrow points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and yellow text reads: “and that’s ABLEISM, too.”

The “Homophobia:” box is lavender, and embedded in the upper right corner of the sexism block; it reads (in white text): “Gay men are corrupting our culture by being effeminate and undermining healthy Masculine Values.” An arrow with a teal point and yellow shaft points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and text (in teal and yellow) reads: “That’s SEXISM, which is ABLEISM.”

Description ends.]

As I said in my previous post, I want to make it a hand-drawn picture of trees (or a single tree with many branches), with the definition of Ableism under the ground, "feeding" the roots of all the other -isms that grow out of it.

I'm also thinking of making it a multi-panel, comics-like thing, so I can "zoom in" on details of the tree, specifically the "fruit" of the tree, where I could include some of the consequence of bigoted thinking and policies (racial profiling, abortion restriction laws, etc.).

But for all the changes I want to make, it's still going to be word-based art, and I've realized I need to come up with the words first, so I can know what shapes to draw around them.

I'm also thinking of (but have not firmly decided in favor of, yet) making some "branches" closest to the base of the tree specifically for Ableism, and how disabled people are barred from full participation in human society...

[Image description: a block of text, divided into four sections. The base of this box is bright yellow, with black text that reads: “Ableism: The belief that the value of a human life is best judged by a Measure of Ability.”

Above that, reading left to right, are three blocks titled “Racism:”, “Sexism:”, and “Homophobia:”.

The “Racism:” block is brick red, and reads (in white text): “Blacks are natural thugs because they’re not as smart as Whites, and they can’t control their emotions.” A yellow arrow points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and yellow text reads: “That’s ABLEISM.”

The “Sexism:” block is dark teal, and reads (in white text): “Women are better off married to men, because they are weaker, and are less rational.” A yellow arrow points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and yellow text reads: “and that’s ABLEISM, too.”

The “Homophobia:” box is lavender, and embedded in the upper right corner of the sexism block; it reads (in white text): “Gay men are corrupting our culture by being effeminate and undermining healthy Masculine Values.” An arrow with a teal point and yellow shaft points to this from the box defining “Ableism,” and text (in teal and yellow) reads: “That’s SEXISM, which is ABLEISM.”

Now that I have working scanner/printer again, I want to illustrate it with something more organic and hand drawn; I'm thinking each of the -isms as trees, with their roots in in "Ableism" (maybe with homophobia growing as an epiphyte on a branch of sexism?).

And I really want to rewrite that definition of ableism, to echo, paraphrase, and draw on this definition from Jay Timothy Dolmage:

Ableism, on the other hand, positively values and makes compulsory able-bodiedness.

[Image description: a computer-drawn image of an imaginary beast with a wingless bird-like body covered in bright, multi-colored fur, a horse like head with small pointed ears, a heart-shaped spot on its cheek, and a single s-curved horn, and a long, lizard-like tail. description ends]

…I made my coffee way-ay-ay too strong, this morning. And I’m worried for my worried U.K. friends. Today is not the day to undertake the frustrating task of trying to figure how to make a custom template in Open Office.

The word "nature" is in a bright floral colored camouflage (like) pattern against black. The letters in "Diversity" are a diverse set of fonts; the "v" is replaced by a LGBTA-Pride striped heart, and the "e" is turned into the wheel on a blue "Wheelchair Access" symbol.

The text is in two lines, and is positioned high on the chest, so it can be more easily read when the wearer is sitting in a wheelchair.(Description ends)

So have another monster picture I drew back in January, 2014, with my compliments and thanks for your friendship (both collective and individual):

(Description: Ballpoint pen drawing of a round-bodied, bird-like, monster standing in profile, with a stubby wing, a single human leg and foot, a toothy beak with human-like nostrils, and a medium-length plumed tail. It is standing next to a flower whose blossom echoes the shape of the plume on its tail. Dated 01/11/14)

Five folds, one straight cut. A video is here: https://youtu.be/iraWBwcOfU8 (haven't found a text, or diagram, or still picture, set of instructions yet). It really is ingenious. I wondered who figured out the math, 'cause drawing a pentagram by Euclid's method, using straight edge and compass, is mind-numbingly complicated.

A few years ago, I came up with the monster design in the icon above this post for a specific boy, and put it on a tee-shirt for him (in the hopes that it would fend off doting adults who wanted to pet him, and call him a "Little Angel!").

Well, recently, I got a hankering for my own monster, that fits my personality. And this is what I came up with:

(Picture description: A loose pencil sketch of a one-legged bird monster in a motor chair, facing the viewer, with a flower growing out of her head)

It's still rough. I think, in my finished version, I'll give her the same pose as the monster above -- that is: with the chair in profile, and the creature's face turned toward the viewer. This would make the wheelchair more instantly recognizable (thanks to the international access symbol), and, to be honest, a heck less complicated, perspective-wise.

At first, because I have such a strong affinity with spiders, I thought to give her spider-like legs. But as I was drawing them, I got a visceral feeling that that was not me -- my hands are very much human!

...I don't think I'd have realized that if I hadn't tried to do something radically different...

My new headset/microphone arrived Friday. I plugged them in on Saturday. And guess what? The microphone actually works, so I can record my voice again (which I haven't been able to do for over a year), which means I can get back to making videos of my poems, and maybe some other stuff, too....

This means also desensitizing my cringe reaction to the sound of my own voice, which will be awkward...

The downside is that, in the meantime, Windows Movie Maker has 'updated', and a lot of my favorite features for animating text and transitioning between still images are no longer available [/sarcastic yay], so I'll have to come up with other means of blending word/audio and visual elements into something that expresses what I mean.

I get on those kicks, occasionally -- often without provocation. But this kick was provoked by the fact that I'm preparing a document for a POD book, and the only "standard" font that the publisher in question (lulu.com) A) recognizes and B) that I actually like (Garamond) is one that did not come included in my Windows 8 computer. So I had to purchase and download the font for myself. I'm happy I did (I'll use it lots). But now, I'm drooling over all the other pretty fonts I want, but can't afford, right now (<3 Gill Sans <3)

Anyway, when I get on kicks, I watch YouTube videos on the topic. That's how I found this animated short, which I sensed several folks in my circles would enjoy, so:

You see, I have these personal "Rules" (okay, guidelines or, at least, preferences) for [non-default] icons:

1) I prefer to use icons I make for myself -- unless I find one that satisfies my other preferences and is also so beautiful, I can't resist snagging it (but only with permission, of course).

2) They should illustrate the dominant sentiment of the specific post to which they are attached.

3) It should be a sentiment that at least has the potential to be a relatively frequent recurring theme -- "one offs" aren't worth the time it takes to make one.

4) If I use an icon image celebrating a fandom, I prefer it to be a fandom I actually belong to. No matter how clever, funny, or beautiful an icon is, I won't snag a "Game of Thrones" or "Walking Dead" icon, for example ... But -- if I see a whole bunch of beautiful icons from a particular show, on a bunch of different friends' journals, I'll take those as recommendations to at least check a show out.

And finally -- and most important (in my mind):

5) The sentiment expressed in a fandom icon should be consistent with the sentiment expressed in the moment used to illustrate it. For example: screen-capping a character in a sad or angry moment, and sticking a silly or absurdist caption on it (or vice-versa) just strikes me as wrong.

So: each "Doctor Who" icon in my collection represents a moment where I've thought: "This show is expressing a truth about myself, and/or the world, and/or my relationship to the world, that I wish to share with others."

In the past (in the "Naughties", before the reboot) I had several different "Doctor Who" icons -- all inspired by the "Classic" era. This is the first time I've been moved to make a bunch of icons from the current season -- because this current season has moved me with its many small moments of emotional truth.

This latest icon was inspired by a string of disappointments and I was feeling down, and I really want to be distracted by talking about squeeful things, so:

"Can I talk about the planets, now?" (or maybe how we landed a probe on a freaking comet?).

I've spelled out my "Pro-Fun" philosophy, and integrated into the image.

I'm trying to answer the question: "Why identify as a 'troll' at all -- why not just come up with a new term?" The word has such a negative connotation, it seems irredeemable.

But, for some reason, this is important to me. Maybe because, in spite of its current negativity, the word "troll" also has undeniable power. Or maybe it's because I'm a fan of obscure folk tales, and there's more to trolls than "Billy Goats Gruff."

Anyway, I love drawing monsters, and coming up with new combinations of creature features that surprise and amuse me. And when naarmamo rolls around, I let myself go to town.

This year, as I was drawing this creature: I started out thinking I was drawing a monster version of a bird, because I was giving it one hind leg, instead of two, and giving it two more "legs," in a 'wrong' place, instead of wings.

But as I continued, I started thinking about how an animal might have evolved to have a single hind leg, and what sort of tail it would need to jump efficiently. I therefore, now, think of this being as an alien creature -- something that fits well somewhere in its native world (however, it seems to be carrying Earth!flowers, so maybe whether you're a "monster" or not depends on context).*

And then, I drew this one:At first, I thought I was drawing an alien being, with a body structured like a sort of muscular amoeba, that can extend "limbs" and appendages at will... But as I continued, I couldn't figure out how its permanent, bony horns and teeth fit within its usual biology... So now, I'm thinking of this creature as a monster -- who would be a monster within its own world, as well.

And then I got to thinking: could there be a culture, human or otherwise, with no idea of, or need for "Monstrousness"? Could there be an alien way of thinking, that was not built around constructed, distinct, categories of things?

In any case, I think main the reason I'm proud to be on Team!Monster is that those of us who don't fit well within existing systems are in unique positions to fix what's broken about them -- or not, depending on spoons. But regardless, I think a world without monsters must be incredibly dull and lifeless...

*And isn't it ironic that I am now trying to categorize the uncategorizable?

In a way that I haven't been since 1996 (My disappointment in the "TV Movie" *cough*failed pilot*cough* has muted nearly all twitterpation since then -- but not this time)... There may be deep, philosophical, self-identity, reasons for this ... or maybe not.